What can—and should—be done to reduce or eliminate such horrible events? From a specifically libertarian perspective, this isn't an easy question for at least two reasons.

First, most libertarians are slow to restrict constitutionally protected rights to own and bear arms, especially since it's only been relatively recently (2008) that the Supreme Court has fully recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms (states had been liberalizing gun control for years prior to that). Second, increases in the ability to own and carry weapons under more circumstances have correlated with a massive decrease in violent crime generally, including gun crimes:

From 1993 to 2015, the rate of violent crime declined from 79.8 to 18.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older,' says the Bureau of Justice Statistics in its most recent comprehensive report (published last October, using data through 2015). Over the same period, rates for crimes using guns dropped from 7.3 per 1,000 people to 1.1 per 1,000 people. The homicide rate is down from 7.4 to 4.9. These are not simply good things, they are great things. They are the essential backdrop of all discussions about gun crime and mass shootings….

From a macro-policy perspective, then, things are going in the right direction. People have more rights, more guns, and they are safer, too. The libertarian response to mass shootings, including school shootings, has been to assert the primacy of the Constitution, highlight positive trends, and to point toward other statistics intended to calm public fears. That may not be enough to withstand a number of counter-trends, however, including fears that mass shootings are becoming more common and gun ownership needs to be more-tightly restricted.

Mass shootings, says researcher Grant Duwe, are not getting more common (though, yes, they are getting more violent). "U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory." Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns far, far more often than most people appreciate. Every possible solution—banning certain types of weapons, arming teachers, putting more cops in schools, expanding mental-health background checks, mandating truly universal background checks that would cover even private gun transactions among family members, shrinking the size of magazines, you name it—won't change anything, has been tried already and failed, or won't pass constitutional muster.

In the wake of the Santa Fe shooting, coming after the Parkland shooting that killed 17, one at Central Michigan University that killed two, and one at a Tennessee Waffle House that killed four, anger, confusion, and fear will understandably reign for a good, long time among people on all sides of the gun-control issue. The Parkland shooter, for example, was extremely well-known to police and social services before he unleashed his terror. Even as the on-site Broward County sheriff who refused to confront the killer during the shooting retires on a six-figure annual pension, the school district is stonewalling requests for information from the families of victims, government, and the media. Scot Israel, who runs the Broward County Sheriff Department, said he wasn't responsible for the failure of his officers in the field. It appears that the Santa Fe shooter used what one analyst called "a Wal Mart beginner hunting gun"—a sawed-off shotgun in most accounts, along with a semiautomatic pistol—while on his rampage, confounding the idea that particular weapons are especially lethal.

Tallies of the number of school shooting so far this year range from 42 to 22 to nine, depending on the source and definition used (CNN alone offered up wildly differing totals yesterday). Local and national politicians are already calling for changes to gun laws and calling out the National Rifle Association (NRA), the country's biggest gun group:

'It's time we strip the NRA of its stranglehold over our children's lives.' — Elizabeth Warren is the first U.S. senator to pledge never to take money from the NRA pic.twitter.com/yzKWedNQNb

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has already declared, in all caps, that the time has come to "DO SOMETHING," regardless of efficacy or effectiveness. Such pronouncements will grow in the coming days and make gun owners, who (rightly or wrongly) already feel threatened by politicians who they (rightly or wrongly) invariably call "gun-grabbers," even more worried than usual. Declan McCullagh earlier this week reported that the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to county-level zoning law that effectively allows California municipalities to ban gun stores. Over the coming months, expect a hardening of positions between supporters and opponents of the Second Amendment, even as there are reasons to believe that supporters are losing the "culture war over guns." After the Parkland shooting, notes Peter Beinart at The Atlantic,

More than 20 corporations, including United Airlines, Hertz, and MetLife have cut ties with the NRA. Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods, two of America's largest gun retailers, have both announced they will stop selling guns to people under the age of 21. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas gun-control activists have become national heroes, praised by numerous celebrities.

Even hardcore gun-rights supporters increasingly feel a need to, like Gov. Cuomo, do something. In the aftermath of Parkland, National Review's David French began promoting the idea of "gun violence restraining orders" (GVROs), which would allow family members and law enforcement officials to petition a court to strip individuals of Second Amendment rights. GVROs, warned Jacob Sullum, provide "much potential for abuse by malicious or mistaken petitioners, abetted by judges who will be inclined to err on the side of what they believe to be caution by revoking the Second Amendment rights of possibly dangerous people." In the wake of the Santa Fe shooting, French points to a 2015 piece by journalist Malcolm Gladwell that he calls

the best explanation for modern American mass shootings, and it's easily the least comforting. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex argument, essentially he argues that each mass shooting lowers the threshold for the next. He argues, we are in the midst of a slow-motion "riot" of mass shootings, with the Columbine shooting in many ways the key triggering event.

Gladwell's case isn't immediately convincing to me—Columbine happened 20 years ago and the frequency of mass shootings hasn't increased and gun violence has declined—but that's less important than what people feel is happening. If conservatives as rock-ribbed as David French, a veteran and former head of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) whom GOP anti-Trumper Bill Kristol unsuccessfully tapped to run against Donald Trump in 2016, are moving in the do-something direction, it's plausible that federal gun-control legislation is only a midterm election away. Donald Trump is nobody's idea of a principled politician. He met with Parkland survivors at the White House and signaled he was open to discussing gun-control legislation and his willingness to do so might become even stronger if the Democrats gain a majority in one or both houses of Congress in the fall. More than anything, the president likes to "win" and make deals, right? Earlier this year, pollsters at the Quinnipiac University National Poll found a historic level of support for "stricter gun laws" (66 percent in favor, 31 percent against) and virtually unanimous support for "universal background checks" (97 percent for, 3 percent against among gun owners). Cuomo's "DO SOMETHING" may be a terrible suggestion, but that doesn't mean it won't carry the day.

Yesterday, the founder of Ars Technica and self-described "gun nut" John Stokes tweeted, "These [shootings] just keep coming, this year. Those of us who value our #2A rights had better come up with something." Along with a long tweetstorm discussing the lethality of the relatively simple weapon reportedly used by the Santa Fe shooter and arguing that "a focus on the 'what' [gun is used] is pointless & should be given up for a focus on the 'who' [that's doing the shooting]," Stokes pointed readers to his April 28 Politico story outlining "gun control that works." An excerpt:

The idea is simple but powerful: a federally issued license for simple possession of all semi-automatic firearms. This license would allow us to carefully vet civilian access to semi-automatic weapons, while overriding state-specific weapon bans and eliminating some of the federal paperwork that ties specific firearms to specific owners.

I offer this idea not only because I actually want to live in a world where it, or something like it, is the law of the land, but also because I and my fellow gun nuts are worried that a storm is coming that will sweep away a substantial portion of our gun rights without really making the country safer in return. We're not even five months into a midterm election year, and 2018 has seen a string of high-profile incidents that have darkened the public's view of civilian gun ownership: February's massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, followed by this month's shootings at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, and at a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee. In the aftermath of these killings, we're hearing proposals for anti-gun measures that we thought were widely considered out of bounds in the gun control debate, like a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, a repeal of the Second Amendment, or even an outright ban on the private ownership of guns. Some of us think this will all blow over, as it always does. And maybe it will. But this time definitely feels different.

I'm not overly convinced by Stokes' plan any more than I am by David French's call for GVROs or Cuomo's demand that we "DO SOMETHING." But there's a lot of wisdom in Stokes' dictate to "come up with something." A good starting point for famously Vulcan-like libertarians would be to openly acknowledge the pain of survivors and the unspeakable horrors that unfold in locations such as Santa Fe and Parkland. It also makes sense to foreground what is surely common ground with the vast majority of Americans, even "gun-grabbers," which is that we all want a more-peaceful, less-violent America. From there, it is essential to provide arguments and insights that will alleviate rather than inflame concerns about safety, rates of violence, and how guns are used. Conservatives and groups like the NRA are fond of blaming broadly defined "mental illness" for gun violence, along with video games, drug-taking, and Democratic rule in cities such as Chicago. Libertarians should combat those weak arguments and discuss how policies such as the war on drugs intensify and concentrate gun violence in urban communities while also explaining how school, social-service, and law-enforcement authorities routinely shirk their responsibilities to identify and contain true threats (this is perhaps the biggest policy takeaway from Parkland). Reflexively reaching for often-thin arguments simply based on originalism, the Founders' intent, or contempt for any form of gun control isn't going to help very much. "Coming up with something" doesn't need to mean introducing a whole new set of gun laws. It can also mean having meaningful, informed, empathetic conversations with people on the other side of a particularly controversial and fraught issue.

Related video: "5 Facts About Guns, Schools, & Violence," which was released in December 2013 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. For more details, go here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

531 responses to “What Can Be Done To Stop School Shootings Without Shredding the Constitution?”

Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home opportunity forall. Make 2512 Dollars per month.All you just Need an DFu Internet Connection and a Computer To Make Some Extra cash. Visit this link …. http://easyjob.club

Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home opportunity forall. Make 2512 Dollars per month.All you just Need an DFu Internet Connection and a Computer To Make Some Extra cash. Visit this link …. http://easyjob.club

I just got paid $6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that?s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do…>>>> http://www.profit70.com

I’ve made $60,000 so far this year working online….I am using an online business opportunityI heard about and I’ve made such great money.(Mike@)…. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it…. Heres what I do………… http://www.profit70.com

There’s a lot we can do to prevent a war on guns that will turn the country into a Gaza Strip with police shooting at us like fish in a barrel. Some things are: ending autism ‘treatment’ which is really just mass shooter training. Stopping homeschooling which is really just ‘public school kids are idiots’ training. Standing up to these gun control rallies which are really just witch hunts against autistic and homeschool kids. Embracing these kids and pulling them back into their community instead of bullying them.

There is a guy I recently found out about on facebook who has been acting strangely lately and all his ‘friends’ are telling him to get a lobotomy. I am trying to talk him out of it but now they are telling me I need a lobotomy! Just for standing up to the bullying. This is wrong and must stop. But yes this is how mass shooters are created.

Nor does it appear that you even understand what autism is. You also seem blissfully unaware of the fact that only a small minority of these shooters were on the spectrum, that the vast majority of those on the spectrum are non-violent. You are nothing but a fucking bigot.

Speaking as someone who’s “on the spectrum”, typical logical fallacy. Since the number of school shootings, and school shooters, is so small, it’s pretty much inevitable that even if they tended to be members of some group, the vast majority of that group wouldn’t be school shooters.

The question being posed is not whether most X are Y, but whether most Y are X.

This remark doesn’t assert any truth value for the proposition, it’s just pointing out your fallacy.

respectfully autism spectrum suffers are WAY over represented in school shooters and are more likely to commit mass shootings. Lanza was Asperger whihc is I part of the spectrum, one of the columbine was. Five of the five trail psychiatrists who worked with Breivik (the Norwegian who is the biggest school shooter in the world diagnosed him with aspergers.

The most recent CDC estimate is autism spectrum including asperger is 1.7% of the public, but are about 30% of the mass school shooters.

And several of the drugs used to treat autism spectrum have been associated with increased violent behavior.

I’ve told my teen cousin this right as we were going to Disneyland (and it happened to be right before another car plowing). If someone wants to murder a bunch of people, there’s really nothing you can do about it if you want to live in a free country. You can mitigate it by having people armed and ready to repel them as fast as possible, but you can’t really stop the initial act.

We were walking down Harbor, and there are hundreds of people walking to get to disneyland. .If someone really wanted to plow through, nothing would stop them.

In Florida, Disney security deterred the pulse shooter, but that’s exactly the point. They just went somewhere else they thought had no security. So unless you want to live in a police state, the best way to minimize the damage these evil people can do is to arm people, so they have a chance of fighting back.

Also what a coincidence these animals always choose soft targets / ‘gun free’ zones. When’s the last time there was a mass shooting at a gun store, or gun show?

If you factor in the roughly 300 million guns Americans own compared to the 138,000 guns that UK citizens own; it makes the number of shootings in American so small it would be labeled statistically insignificant.

You could also look at the number of shootings that are actual assaults (you have to subtract the 2.5 million that are actual legal self-defense because those don’t count) compared to the 300 million guns and it would again make the US the safest country in the world.

Point is that when comparing the total number of guns to the total number of actual violent gun acts, the numbers show that guns have the most amazing safety record on planet earth.

Yeah, no. The guns on display aren’t loaded, but I can guarantee you that probably a third or more of the people there are carrying concealed, which no gun show in their right mind would prohibit, unless they want nobody to show up.

All the ones I’ve been to have asked attendees to unload & put a tie wrap thru their carry gun to show it’s unloaded. I’ve never seen any frisking, so I assume it’s primarily on the honor system with a cop by the door.

Just imagine that you are in fact a crazy shooter. Now, all you need is venue. Two possible venues are a gun free school, or a gun show. Would you, being an otherwise rational crazy guy, choose the gun show? A gun show with thousands of guns and limitless amo. And experienced shooters. You would not make it out of there alive, even if every gun was initially unloaded. It would take only seconds for those experienced shooters to load guns, only some of which have tie wraps. I’d say that your lifespan from the time you started shooting would be approximately ten seconds.

None of the guns are loaded…. And? How long do you think it takes for someone behind a stand to load a gun and return fire on a would-be mass shooter? How long do you think it takes for this to happen across multiple stands. The would-be mass shooter would certainly injure or kill some people. But their mass shooting ends very quickly. And this is all ignoring that, at some gun shows, owners are allowed to carry loaded weapons. A gun show would be a horrible choice for a would-be mass shooter.

A gun show is a hardened target. Many do not all CC, some do, but given there are hundred of thousands of rounds of ammo all over the place at even a small to medium sized one, along with thousands of guns, you’d last about 5 seconds trying to shoot one up.

Who said anything about bans? Just recognize that people are dangerous to each other, so stay far away from each other. People recognized this in the case of communicable diseases. Move out of the cities, spread out evenly across the countryside, & we’ll all be safer from mass shootings or mass anything.

One thing that can be done is for media — such as, say, this very blog — to refrain from publishing the names and pictures of the shooters. This requires no government action, but it requires that each publication individually adopt and implement the policy.

I was crestfallen yesterday to see the name and pictures of the Santa Fe shooter prominently featured on H&R.

The brain regularly culls information that isn’t accessed. Most people cannot recall the names of shooters after a few months. It becomes what is actually memorable: the Aurora theater shooting, Pulse, Dylan Roof with the penis head, Columbine, Sandy Hook.

I, for example, can’t recall the names of the Boston marathon bombers. Oh, I could look it up on the internet should I have a pressing need for the information, and yet I don’t remember it.

The cost-reward calculations are a little skewed, once we factor that in. Limiting what can or ought to be printed, in return for not seeing information most of us won’t need or remember anyway, might be more trouble than it’s worth.

The reason you remember the name of, say, Dylan Roof but not, say, the black guy who did the exact same thing Roof did a couple years afterwards is obvious when you consider the characteristics of each of them, who owns the media, and what agenda and messaging is being pushed by doing so. It’s a process called highlighting and minimizing. It’s a propaganda technique. Roof was on the news for months, black guy who shoots up a white church isn’t on national media at all.

I actually used the black guy who shot up a church and the other black guy who shot up a news team in Virginia as examples, and then thought it would seem I was reaching too far afield to prove my point about names being unimportant over the long term, and so deleted them. Ha.

Remembering them at all is a tiny bit remarkable, since, as you point out, Dylan Roof was a bigger national story, and that he fit the narrative was probably more than coincidental. Confirmation bias is a helluva siren song.

It’d perhaps be helpful if we started looking at it as a neurotypical condition rather than a character flaw; everyone does it, we just can’t catch ourselves at it.

I doubt that the longevity of people’s memories is much of a concern for those shooters for whom publicity is part of the motivation. The issue I raise is: name and likeness seen by millions, or by (almost) no one?

The kids in this tiny subgroup DO remember the names, in virtually all the cases they have press clippings, bookmarks on their browsers etc of prior mass shooters.

You and I don’t conflate fame with infamy. these shooters do. the media abets this by making the shooters famous despite peer reviewed work showing this is exactly what shooters crave.

all emotionally healthy people do have periods of feeling insignificant. an emotionally healthy person going through such a period in feeling insignificant and mildly depressed might fantasize about scoring the last second winning soccer goal, saving a drowning child, inventing a cure to cancer. there are known sets of heroic fantasies people daydream of.

These shooters have fantasies and visualizations of becoming well known — but due to a specific handful of three or four specific mental illnesses at least one present in every mass shooter, are fine choosing an infamy scenario since it certain.

Then they wouldn’t be doing their job. The American Psychological Association (?) put out a suggested best practices for media organizations to minimize the ‘contagion’ factor of these incidents. I think a few orgs follow, but most do not.

“The libertarian response to mass shootings, including school shootings, has been to assert the primacy of the Constitution, highlight positive trends, and to point toward other statistics intended to calm public fears. That may not be enough to withstand a number of counter-trends, however, including fears that mass shootings are becoming more common and gun ownership needs to be more-tightly restricted”.

You left off the part about how using the government to violate the rights of gun owners who have done nothing wrong is an excruciatingly obvious example of injustice.

Look, throwing rocks and launchng missiles is one thing, but Democrats freak out over guns and campaign financing. Maybe the NRA could win them over by thowing Molotov cocktails at their district offices.

You left off the part about how using the government to violate the rights of gun owners who have done nothing wrong is an excruciatingly obvious example of injustice.

True, it is an “obvious example of injustice.” (Because I’m as strong a Second Amendment advocate as anyone here.)

But I also do public relations. To parents who aren’t ardent 2A people, the gun-owner rights argument is irrelevant, and you aren’t going to convince them otherwise. Argue that your, or their right to keep and bear arms is more important than their child’s safety, and they’ll vote against you every time.

If you want to convince people to vote against “violating the rights of gun owners” you have to give them a reason that they respect. In order to win their votes you have to show them that gun control makes their child’s life more dangerous.

Luckily, we’re not trying to convince crime victims of anything. We’re going for third parties–people just like me.

An excellent reason not to perpetrate injustice against innocent people is because they haven’t done anything wrong.

If you want to use the coercive power of government and the criminal justice system to go after people who haven’t done anything wrong, then you need to hear about the fundamental injustice you want to perpetrate against innocent people. It is absolutely necessary for you to hear about it.

I’d compare it to the drug war, but what the gun grabbers want to do is much worse than that. You could argue that people can’t use crack cocaine without at least hurting themselves, but the gun grabbers don’t even have that fig leaf to hide behind. They want to use drug war style laws to go after a hundred million Americans who own guns and never hurt anybody–not even themselves.

I won’t shut up about people advocating injustice like they’re morally superior. Their moral superiority is a fraud.

Bullying innocent gun owners isn’t a “rights” issue. If you can’t convince someone that scapegoating innocents is wrong, then the person you’re talking to is simply evil ? and with unambiguously evil people out there looking for victims, being armed is the only non-suicidal choice.

I’m long over the notion that the progressives can be engaged in any meaningful debate on a large scale. The last 18 months have proven that things can’t be settled at the ballot box. It will take real action to stop them.

Tighten up security at schools: one entrance, multiple emergency exits. Station armed security. A rash of failed school shootings will make it look like pointless suicide instead of going out in a blaze of glory, stopping the copycat problem.

School security violates no deeply held left wing principles. The right wants it. If the left joins in it happens tomorrow. The left fights it because they are the ones who want dead children, to use as weapons against people they hate,

The betters want to limit the influence of the lessers, though, and have fewer of them. For example, they want to provide a lifeline to enable smart, ambitious young people to escape the yahoo towns at high school graduation, enabling them to reach strong campuses and modern, successful communities to pursue education, opportunity, and modernity.

How many of the dregs of the third world that you’re importing by the million do you wager are better people than the flyover country rednecks you disdain? Your children (if you have any — not holding my breath on that one) will find out, and how useful your African studies degrees will be when that payment comes due.

Those 3rd world “dregs” are more ambitious and brave than you or any of the other navivists who oppose them. They are willing to leave their shitty situations and travel to a country full of hostile assholes….all in the hopes of making a better life for themselves and their families. I’ll take that any day over some entitled Murican who doesn’t understand the history of what made his country great.

If they really were all of these things then their own countries wouldn’t be toilets, and parts of our countries wouldn’t be turned into section that resemble their countries propped up by our redistributed wealth.

Go preview the future you xenophilic losers want today; move to Brazil and live in the favelas of Rio. That’s what your children will experience if they’re not part of the moneyed elite in the future. You can go live that future today, though.

“Those 3rd world “dregs” are more ambitious and brave than you or any of the other navivists who oppose them.”

A woman we (wife and I) know manages a pretty busy restaurant in SF; if it wasn’t it would have gone belly-up. 200 seats? At least half a turn for lunch, kitchen staff of 15, front end close, maybe a bit more. The restaurant is one of several owned by the folks we also know. One of the regulars is a lawyer, who got her to successfully apply for citizenship (’cause Trump!). I do not know the details, but there was a bit of congratulatory celebration when was sworn in; I lifted one. “Dregs” she never was, but she is now planning a trip to Europe under a US pass port. So? First, she’s ‘brown’ (Spanish-speaking), but she’d be hired by anyone wanting competence. In spite of being ‘illegal’. English-speakers work for her and are happy to do so. Secondly, she had to be ‘scared’ into getting that US ticket, but now she *can* travel, where in the past she simply could not. You can argue for a stateless world, but I was happy to have the US pass port when I was in the nether regions of far west China and the ‘Stans. Draw your own conclusions from this; let’s see ’em and see ’em supported.

Ok, quick straw poll: I left some of my papperwork at home. Is it ok for me to catch the next flight from Romania to Israel, enter with my USA passport as a tourist, and then live and work there indefinitely? A person can get by there with only English for some strange reason.

It is not genetics; it is the threat of deportation should they get uppity that makes some folks prefer immigrants. My friend from Afghanistan has a baby mama from Florida who leans Democrat and threatens to deport him when she is in one of her moods. She is White, but the Black social worker who practically raised her backs her stance.

Arty conservatives and,inertarains are your betters. For example, you will now address me as ‘Master’. In fact, the collective worth of progressive lives is not equal to the value of any single natural right of which I am imbued.

You should celebrate the extreme patience and generosity of your betters. For if we decided it, your kind would be swept aside at a a pace your tiny imagination cannot comprehend. You would be off the map and gone.

Arty, you’re a weak little pussy. You and your friends are afraid of real fight. My friends and I are armed, trained, and aren’t afraid to fight. We run most of the businesses, and have superior edcication and intellect.

You couldn’t step on a real American, even if you weren’t so gutless as to even try. Best you just learn to obey.

backwardness superstition and bigotry are slightly more common among Democrats, but what is really shocking is 75% of all US murder, comprising the entire elevation over developed democracy averages, occurs in 58 out of 3,000 US counties — every one of them run by and predominantly people with Democrats.

Democrats are about twice as likely to be flat earth on vaccines and think they cause autism, Democrats are more lily to think the sun revolved around the earth, and Democrats are twice as likely to believe in astrology. Democrats are more likely to be unemployed, as well.

I don’t care about those problems. What I care about the fact that Democrats are many times more likely to be murderers.

Successful communities? Such as which? The inner cities are failing to a far, far worse extent than the rural areas. These are the strongest of progressive strongholds. The most successful communities are the middle suburbs. They are not nearly as progressive in their thought as you’d like.

backwardness superstition and bigotry are slightly more common among Democrats, but what is really shocking is 75% of all US murder, comprising the entire elevation over developed democracy averages, occurs in 58 out of 3,000 US counties — every one of them run by and predominantly people with Democrats.

Democrats are about twice as likely to be flat earth on vaccines and think they cause autism, Democrats are more lily to think the sun revolved around the earth, and Democrats are twice as likely to believe in astrology. Democrats are more likely to be unemployed, as well.

I don’t care about those problems, I care about the fact that Democrats are many times more likely to be murderers.

“School security violates no deeply held left wing principles. The right wants it. If the left joins in it happens tomorrow. The left fights it because they are the ones who want dead children, to use as weapons against people they hate”

You are completely fucking insane if you think that ANYONE wants their child to be murdered. Seriously. Fucking. Nuts.

The guy who wrote this article is putting out a call for reasoned, sane arguments, and you come up with this?

No one wants *their* child to be murdered. But if school shootings were to somehow suddenly stop, do you think that the proponents of increased gun control would suddenly stop calling for new gun laws? And do you think, if they didn’t stop calling for gun control, some of them wouldn’t find themselves wishing for a school shooting somewhere in flyover country so they could point to it and say “See! We need gun control!”?

“School security violates no deeply held left wing principles. The right wants it. If the left joins in it happens tomorrow. The left fights it because they are the ones who want dead children, to use as weapons against people they hate”

You are completely fucking insane if you think that ANYONE wants their child to be murdered. Seriously. Fucking. Nuts.

The guy who wrote this article is putting out a call for reasoned, sane arguments, and you come up with this?

There are armed guards at many public buildings – banks, airports and government offices, for instance – we absolutely need guards in schools. We will never be able to weed out the would-be attackers with new restrictions on gun ownership. The anti-Second Amendment activists set up these gun free (read: soft target) areas specifically to get the political leverage they are now using after each atrocity. It’s time to stop playing politics with children’s lives and start protecting our kids.

Maybe you should figure out what has changed since, say, 1930 when a 12 year old boy could (if he had the money) order a belt-fed machine gun out of a catalog and have it delivered to his home, and when there used to be target shooting clubs in public schools where boys brought in rifles, to now, the current year, where these things happen regularly.

Of course, once you acknowledge what has changed and that doing anything about all of this is against your hyper-atomized individualist, open borders, no national identity or cohesiveness worldview then the conclusion will be that nothing can be done. It will continue to get worse and you will continue to shill for policies that will assure it gets worse. Doesn’t affect your gated community just like dumping millions of third world peasants on the working and middle class plebes didn’t affect you, so why should you care other than to wring your hands with garbage blog posts where you have no interest in exploring what has caused any of this.

It was a matter of time before some yutz yelled “open borders”, which is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. How many school shootings are committed by illegal aliens? None – they’re nearly all done by mentally disturbed alienated nerdy white boys, who in the 80s would simply turn to the Libertarian Party to find chicks (and then run away when they found that women weren’t into the LP) but now are turning to the internet and guns.

Though, good point about libertarianism. It’s part of why it’s a pipe dream. Everyone who’s looked at a libertarian conference knows it’s overwhelmingly white men and no efforts at outreach will change this because either the demographic you’re attempting to reach is too dumb to understand the purely ivory tower bafflegab, or in the case of east Asians too smart to be drawn in by purely theoretical garbage that has never withstood even a basic game theory analysis.

“It is laughable to observe how easily any system of Philosophy can be proved false; but then is it not mournful to perceive the impossibility of even fancing any particular system to be true?” — Edgar Allan Poe, Marginalia

Shhh! It’s always the fault of the brown people! Don’t you know anything? Why, it was all of those brown people in Klebold’s and Harris’s lily-white Denver suburb that caused them to shoot up their highschool.

1930? Try 1980, when every boy in my school went deer hunting and half the class was gone on opening day of hunting season, and many students took their rifles with them to leave early that day to go hunting. And no one ever shot each other. Or used a knife in a fight for that matter — the point of a fight was to prove who was tougher, not to kill the other guy.

In the mid 1970s, I regularly carried a 12 gauge and ammo in the trunk of my car or in the camper shell of my truck to my high school – a Catholic HS no less – in a San Francisco suburb with just under 100,000 population. Many people knew about it and no one got excited.

They knew I was going pheasant or duck hunting after a half day session, in the nearby California Delta.

You don’t have to go back as far as the 1930s to find a time when people didn’t get all freaked about a gun that wasn’t pointing at them.

Every last bit of this is the fault of the progressives. From their emasculating policies, to their insistence of drugging perfectly normal boys. All to feminize them and make them the progressive beta make ideal.

Incidentally, if you’re somebody who only remembers what the Constitution says about the right to bear arms when that right comes under threat, then you haven’t been doing the Second Amendment any favors.

If you’ve called on congress to ignore the First Amendment and discriminate against Muslims in immigration policy, you’ve stabbed the argument for respecting the Second Amendment in the back.

If you’ve argued that the courts should ignore congress’ enumerated power to set the rules of naturalization or that cities should be free to ignore the Constitution, then you’ve stabbed the argument for respecting the Second Amendment in the back.

I would have supported Trump’s recent retaliation against Assad for using chemical weapons–except that it was unconstitutional. How could I support something unconstitutional like that and then expect people to take me seriously when I assert the primacy of First and Second Amendment protections for my rights?

I’ve seen people in these pages recently argue for Trump to respect an unconstitutional agreement with Iran that violated a thoroughly constitutional NPT treaty.

People should be forgiven if they can’t tell the difference between libertarians who only care about the Constitution when it suits them for other reasons and people who don’t give a shit about the Constitution. When we undermine our own arguments that way, it’s our own fault.

If you’ve called on congress to ignore the First Amendment and discriminate against Muslims in immigration policy, you’ve stabbed the argument for respecting the Second Amendment in the back.

Which nobody’s ever done. The ban targeted people who were not Muslim as well, and over 90% of the world’s Muslims would not have been affected by the travel ban. And of course, the first amendment only protects free exercise within US jurisdiction, which the tiny fraction of Muslims who would be affected by the ban are not.

Are you saying that Trump’s travel ban doesn’t violate the First Amendment, or are you saying that no one has ever called for congress to discriminate against Muslims in immigration policy?

My argument was not about what politicians have done or do.

My argument was addressed to people like you and me–in the lunchroom, around the dinner table, around the water cooler, at church, talking to the guy on the next bar stool, etc.

I assure you, there are plenty of people out there arguing that congress should discriminate against Muslims in immigration policy–and whether they realize it or not, they’re watering down support for the Second Amendment when they do that.

Because we respect other people’s right to freedom of religion is an excellent reason why they should respect our right to bear arms. And it works that way with all kinds of things. Unfortunately, it works the other way, too. If we refuse to respect, for instance, other people’s freedom of religion, that’s one reason why people wouldn’t feel compelled to respect our right to bear arms.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

—-First Amendment

You’d have to get just as or more creative with the text of the First Amendment to make it say that it’s okay for congress to make rules for naturalization that discriminate against Muslims than how creative gun grabbers get to make the Second Amendment somehow mean that we don’t have the right to bear arms.

It doesn’t require you to be very creative, you know. The establishment clause had to do with state churches. Several of the states had established religions at the time, and none of the states wanted the federal government to involve itself in the topic, either pro or con.

As for prohibiting the free exercise of religion, “You continue freely exercising your religion. Just do it somewhere else.” isn’t a violation, either.

Trump’s travel ban doesn’t establish a religion, so it doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment on that account.

It also doesn’t violate anyone’s Constitutionally protected rights because foreign nationals on foreign soil outside US jurisdiction don’t have rights protected by the US Constitution. The US Constitution doesn’t apply to them at all.

I don’t think Muslims should be scapegoated because scapegoating innocent people is wrong. But the travel ban didn’t do that ? it didn’t apply to most of the biggest Muslim countries. It was about knowing the background of travelers, and some countries didn’t provide the sort of background info the State Department wanted. It was only for 90 days, to provide time for data collection to be worked out.

“Trump’s travel ban doesn’t establish a religion, so it doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment on that account.”

If Trump’s travel ban (the latest version anyway) doesn’t give preferential treatment to or discriminate against anybody on the basis of their religion–but their country of origin–then it doesn’t violate the First Amendment. If it applies the same to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons from that country, then it’s perfectly okay according to the First Amendment.

But what the fuck does that have to do with anything I wrote?

Did I not make it clear that I wasn’t talking about what politicians did or do? Do you really not see why this observation is irrelevant to what I wrote?

“It also doesn’t violate anyone’s Constitutionally protected rights because foreign nationals on foreign soil outside US jurisdiction don’t have rights protected by the US Constitution. The US Constitution doesn’t apply to them at all.”

This is stupid horseshit with no basis in reality.

Here’s the text of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

—-First Amendment

The First Amendment applies to the U.S. government generally and the U.S. congress specifically. The U.S. government cannot do this, that, or the other, according to the First Amendment, and if you believe otherwise, then you’re delusional.

In fact, the framers did not believe our rights to religion, free speech, etc. derive from government, and it’s insane to think that they would ever say that such natural rights only belong to people depending on where they are in the world. It just flies in the face of everything they believed in.

The only rights American citizens have that others don’t is the legal right to be here, the legal right to hold office, and the legal right to vote.

Congress is tasked with setting the rules of naturalization by Article I, Section 8, and they’re also prohibited from making rules that discriminate on the basis of religion by the First Amendment.

Ken Shultz|5.19.18 @ 10:37PM|# “Congress shall make no law Congress shall make no law Congress shall make no law Say it over and over to yourself in your mind. Maybe what it means will sink in eventually.”

I cannot BELIEVE the number of people posting here claiming to have libertarian sympathies who seem to think the Constitution “grants” rights. How hard can this be? “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW” The Constitution does not “grant rights”; it limits the powers of the federal (and local) governments! You can look in vain to find a “Constitutional Right” to eat a hot-dog at the ball park; it’s not there since the Constitution was never intended to “allow’ anyone to do something. It says the government(s) can’t keep you from doing so. How hard can this be?

And they have no basis for it! I can point to a handful of things–in the Constitution–that shoot this idea down, and it still persists. And it’s so authoritarian. Is there a more authoritarian idea than the idea that our rights are created and defined by government? The idea that our rights exist independent of whether any government acknowledges or respects them is the first ten minutes of the first day of Libertarianism 101. Without that, what else is there?

I suspect part of it is that that the Constitution does such a good job of approximating the rights that it protects, it’s easy to imagine it’s actually defining those rights–and granting them.

On the other hand, the same people who want the courts to read the Second Amendment in plain language also want them to look at the First Amendment cross-eyed to justify congress violating freedom of religion. On the other hand, the same people who want the court to plainly read the First Amendment to protect fundamentalists’ association rights also want them to look at the Fifth and Eighth Amendments cross-eyed to justify torturing terrorists.

That’s what makes people smirk at our insistence on a plain reading of the Second Amendment.

They want to misinterpret everything the Constitution says in a way that makes their favorite violations somehow okay–and then they want to claim that our enemies are awful because they won’t read the Second Amendment as it’s written. That’s just about intellectual honesty.

Visiting the US has no baring on anyone’s free exercise of their religion. Which religion requires adherents to visit the US? Not Islam.

Foreign nationals on foreign soil are free of US Congressional authority over their religious exercise. Congress made no law that impacts them in any way.

Congress can choose who can and can’t visit the US.

You can say you disagree with the travel ban all you like. But if you want to make a legal argument, those are supposed to logically follow from the law. Chanting one phrase and ignoring everything else isn’t the way.

All this discussion is off topic. The topic is the 2nd Amendment as it applies to Americans, not the 1st Amendment and how it doesn’t apply to foreign nationals who have never set foot on US soil.

Is intellectual honesty new to you? Do you imagine that because I agree with Trump’s travel ban, that means I nave to support every argument for it–no matter how unconstitutional, unsupported, or stupid?

Why can’t you get it through your head that the First Amendment is a restriction on Congress and the U.S. government–just like it says?

I’m quoting the verbiage of the Constitution and pointing out that your weird interpretation of the plain language of the First Amendment has no basis in history, the Constitution itself, or any plausible explanation of what the framers did and why.

You seem to be making shit up, offering no evidence for your delusional beliefs whatsoever. Do you imagine that saying something over and over somehow makes it true? Do you imagine that having a rationalization divorced from any evidence or logic somehow means your delusion is true?

So far I’ve seen nothing from you–except restatements of your own delusion. I suspect one of the reasons you haven’t offered any evidence for your weird claim that the First Amendment only applies to people within our borders is because you can’t find any.

Yes, congress is tasked with setting the rules of immigration in Article I, Section 8, AND congress is prohibited from setting those rules in any way that they violates the First Amendment in regards to freedom of religion. I’ve already pointed that out. Why are you saying the same unsupported shit over and over again–after it’s already been debunked?

P.S. Your willful misrepresentation of the First Amendment = the gun grabbers willful misrepresentation of the Second Amendment.

In fact, your willful attempts to violate the First Amendment is carrying water for the gun grabbers’ attempts to violate the Second.

When you make like the First Amendment doesn’t means what it says, and then turn around and fault the gun grabbers for misrepresenting the plain language of the Second Amendment, you’re pulling the rug out from under the primacy of both the First and Second Amendments.

The difference between someone who only cares about the Constitution when it suits their other agendas and someone who doesn’t give a shit about what the Constitution says is negligible.

If someone wanted to find a better way to undermine the constitutional arguments for respecting our rights, they could hardly come up with a better strategy than what you’re doing. Have you considered becoming a progressive? They love people who twist and ignore the text of the Constitution like you do.

And if Congress had said “no Islam as a condition of entry into the US” then you might have a point. But that’s not what the travel ban did. Muslims from most of the largest Muslim countries faced zero restrictions from the travel ban. And there were no special considerations for non-Muslims from countries like Yemen on the ban list.

The thing that was unconstitutional was the judges making things up and ignoring precedent.

“You don’t want a gestapo.” No, I don’t. But not everybody is me. There are plenty of people who want a gestapo to enforce their version of what the world should be like. Various factions on the far right want a gestapo to enforce their version of religious morality, or of ethnic purity. Various factions on the left want a gestapo to enforce their version of tolerance and social justice, or of ethnic diversity.

We could talk about bullying, we could talk about SSRIs, we could talk about public schools and the rising depression, anxiety, and suicide rates in children and teens. But we’re gonna talk guns instead.

I don’t want new laws, I want new conversations. These ones aren’t working.

You could also talk about the demographics of your country morphing into an alienating third world sewer where things like this happen regularly, like in the Indian subcontinent. I guess that’s too inconvenient and against the open borders fanatics and their profit at all costs credo, though.

Weren’t you just upthread all “Don’t be collectivising!” when someone suggested this was a white boy problem?

This looks similar to a primate battle for dominance. I’m going to suggest that the tactics don’t become good tactics depending on which side is using them. Would you like to play a game, Professor?

I have a suggestion. We can have two comment threadings. Everyone who would like to participate in a zero-sum battle for dominance can go to one, and the people who want to talk can go to the other.

And because it’s this place, a third for the people who want to mock threadings, a fourth for sexy Asian cat videos, a fifth for people to duke it out over a completely unrelated subject, a sixth devoted to someone’s mother, and a seventh, eighth, and ninth for music, lifestyle, and current events.

No, I was pointing out that the narrative there about evil whitey isn’t even true (it’s a media construct via propaganda methods) and if you look at the actual crime stats then you’re in for a real shock since the black gangbangers outdo everyone else put together by a lot. I think that this pejorative terms people wave around like magical talismans like “collectivism!” or “identity politics!” are just Orwellian terms for something normal; group interests. I live in the real world of is rather than of ought, though.

I can accurately perceive reality here, and reality is that there are zero sum things out there like land and carry capacity. Also, being forced to live together with people you’d rather not since your government has stripped you of freedom of association as well as begun redistributing things from you to others isn’t good. If you really cared about minimizing conflict you wouldn’t be for radically transforming countries into these “diverse” sewers. If something’s actually natural and good for you, you don’t need to “tolerate” it. You can throw out all of these bromides about me pining for the “good old days” and nonsense about people who weren’t even here “knowing their place” but the fact is you’re the lunatic trying to force us together and creating these conflicts which lead to violence, all while ensconced in your gated communities where you deal with none of it.

History is not some linear progress towards bigger and better things, you ideological dopes.

Because if someone wanted to commit a mass shooting in a ghetto school they would first have to shoot their way past the security guards at the metal detector, which would serve as adequate warning to the armed police officer that’s lingering nearby that perhaps he needs to ready himself for action. And the potential shooters see this setup every day and even in their wildest flights of revenge fantasy, realize that they are going to get gunned down by the cop at the front door, rather than killing Sarah who dumped them, or John who bullied them, or the math teacher that called them stupid.

It appears lulz farmer is reaching his breaking point with respect to all of this damned education, science, reason, tolerance, inclusivity, and progress. He may even have begun to recognize that the good old days for which he pines — when “regular” Americans set the tone and blacks, gays, women, agnostics, foreigners, Jews, atheists, point-headed professor types, and others knew their place — are never coming back. Mainly because the good old days never existed.

Carry on, clingers. Maybe pick a tile room when your head finally explodes from all of this progress.

The greatest barrier to any version of “something” is the gun control crowd. They increasingly aren’t interested in facts and the only solution they want to discuss starts with less guns. Any effort at extending an olive branch so we can work thru this problem together will be met with declarations of how you have blood on your hands if you don’t see that they’re just talking “common sense”.

Doesn’t mean the gun rights side of things don’t need to work on their PR skills. They most sincerely do. It just means that they’ll have to settle for small victories, because we live in an emotional world. A billion or so people are watching a wedding right about now and thinking how wonderful it all is, when it amounts to an elaborate welfare project. Common sense is a slogan, but it doesn’t mean they have much of it, so tread carefully.

Something that the gun rights advocates really need to wrap their heads around is that only about 30% of Americans own guns. That means 70% do not. What’s more, only about half of those who don’t own a gun have even fired a gun in their lives. That means, a good one-third of the country don’t own guns, and have probably never even held a gun, let alone shot a gun. For this 1/3 of the country, their ONLY exposure to guns is from the popular media – movies, video games, etc. THOSE guns are not “real guns”, but imaginary death machines that never need cleaning, never need reloading, and don’t require any skill to use effectively. Trying to get through to these people about the importance of the right to own a gun is not likely to be terribly effective. What might be more effective is for popular media to depict guns in a more realistic fashion.

I’ve never owned or fired a gun, and don’t particularly want to. Explain to me why the “right to own a gun” is so important.

Libertarians like to talk about resisting government tyranny, but they don’t seem to grasp that the rest of us aren’t particularly enthused about the idea of a self-appointed amateur militia of undereducated gun nuts deciding it’s time to overthrow the government. The dipshits here talking about how “tax is theft” are not the ones I want writing our next Constitution. Thanks though.

With the help of educated and progressive citizens, they benefit from a long struggle against backwardness and intolerance, in particular against the type of bigoted, half-educated southern whites who are the backbone of today’s Republican-conservative electoral coalition?

That isn’t really what I’m asking, though. The question is why it’s important. Like, it is pretty clear to me that the freedom of speech is important in a democracy, as it allows us to organize and speak about government policy. The same goes for the Establishment Clause. But relative to those, I’d say that the “freedom of religion” is less important; rights to “equal protection” and “due process” tend to vary according to circumstances; and so on.

So, in the larger view of the “Bill of Rights,” the question is why the right to bear arms is there, and why it’s supposed to be important. Understanding this importance would help us to understand the degree to which our law should be shaped to protect it.

1. It IS in the Constitution, which means that it’s either enforced, or we don’t have the rule of law. And if we don’t have the rule of law, none of the other protections in the Constitution mean squat, either.

But, apparently, you think we can selectively lose the rule of law. That you can pick out parts of the Constitution to render void, and they’ll only be the right parts, and the rest of it will stand unchallenged.

That marks you as an idiot in my eyes.

2. It’s important because of the other aspirations of the people demanding we give it up.

Look, when somebody demands that you render yourself defenseless, the default presumption is that they don’t want you to be able to defend yourself from them. In the case of the left, who are the driving force behind the gun control movement, this is a highly plausible motivation, based on what they do wherever they have unchallenged power.

So, no, I’m not giving up the ability to defend myself in response to demands that I give it up or else.

It’s there because governments are the single biggest threat to human life. Governments are defined by their monopoly on the legal right to use force. That is an enormous power. It has been abused many times throughout human history, to the tune of hundreds of millions murdered by governments. An armed populace is a check against government abuses that lead to such slaughters. Multiple governments, included multiple governments in so-called enlightened Europe in the past century, have used gun bans as the first step in campaigns to execute their citizens by the millions or tens of millions. No matter how enlightened a government is supposed to be, there is always the threat that it will wage war against its populace.

It’s also there because individuals may face a threat from non-government sources and may need to use force to defend themselves. We know, for instance, that there are between 1 million and 3 million defensive uses of guns in the U.S. every year. This is ~30 to ~100 times more frequently than guns are used to commit crimes. Guns can be used defensively by those who are about to be attacked to quickly end that attack (usually without shots fired – the threatened use of a gun is enough to ward off many would-be attackers). This is especially important for a threatened person who is smaller, weaker, less mobile, etc. than their attacker, who faces an armed attacker, etc.

In short, it’s there because we recognize that individuals have an absolute right to defend themselves against would-be aggressors, whether those aggressors are individuals or organizations like government. Guns are the most effective tool for this purpose, though it should be noted that the 2nd Amendment also covers other types of weapons.

SimonP|5.19.18 @ 3:08PM|# “I’ve never owned or fired a gun, and don’t particularly want to. Explain to me why the “right to own a gun” is so important.”

Simon, you have been handed your hat on several occasions and yet you still return from time to time to post lefty bullshit. Are you capable of understanding why your bullshit is bullshit? Or are you trolling?

On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued “Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons.” Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own “truncheons or stabbing weapons.”

In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.

This from a “Politifact” article arguing that gun control laws didn’t help Hitler and Co. kill 6 million Jews.

Not likely to happen. The owners and operators of what you call popular media have a vested interest in civilian disarmament so they can do what their near ancestors in Russia did about a hundred years ago.

Even more effective would be restoring militia service (or in today’s world some sort of community service since it also involves natural disaster, search/rescue, and other stuff that could eliminate full-time bureaucrats). That would involve everyone becoming familiar with guns – along with everyone else. Thus eliminating a lot of the ‘other’ mindset too.

Course in room full of libertarians that notion of mandatory service is as welcomed as a fart.

JFree|5.19.18 @ 7:29PM|# “Course in room full of libertarians that notion of mandatory service is as welcomed as a fart.”

You’re right. It takes a dim-bulb lefty to find compulsory government service a neat idea. Here’s what I’d go for: You get drafted today, with no expiration date. Since you think it’s a good idea, you’ve got to love that.

Since we ended the draft, we have been fearmongered into perpetual war and 9/11 turned out to be EXACTLY the sort of ‘standing army is the biggest threat to liberty’ event that the founders warned about. The entire purpose of ending conscription was not to eliminate pointless endless wars in the world’s shitholes – but to eliminate OPPOSITION to those wars.

It is not a surprise at all that a chickenhawk asswipe like you learns the wrong lesson. And doesn’t have the slightest clue why the founders viewed an ORGANIZED militia as a necessary alternative to the standing army – and so put the 2nd in place.

JFree|5.20.18 @ 12:27PM|# “Since we ended the draft, we have been fearmongered into perpetual war and 9/11 turned out to be EXACTLY the sort of ‘standing army is the biggest threat to liberty’ event that the founders warned about. The entire purpose of ending conscription was not to eliminate pointless endless wars in the world’s shitholes – but to eliminate OPPOSITION to those wars.” What a pile of non-sequitur bullshit; you should be proud.

“It is not a surprise at all that a chickenhawk asswipe like you learns the wrong lesson. And doesn’t have the slightest clue why the founders viewed an ORGANIZED militia as a necessary alternative to the standing army – and so put the 2nd in place.” OK, slaver, show me ONCE where I have supported any war past WWII. Just once, you slimy piece of lefty shit. Once, please.

This “let boys be boys” comment is bullshit. The school shooters aren’t acting too feminine. They get bullied for whatever reason, rejected by a girl (example of the last two shootings at the very least) or face other social problems with their peers, and they shoot up their classmates.

Instead of letting “boys be boys”, who bully other boys and make fun of them if they aren’t popular or masculine, we need to teach these kids to handle rejection, feel less entitled, angry and to learn healthy ways to manage stress. Stop enabling them and making them entitled snowflakes who shoot up their school because their girlfriend broke up with them or some kids bullied them, or they hate the world.

Put down the screens, video games and play with each other. Socialize in real life, not on social media. Psychotropic drugs and technology are fucking up the developing brains of children.

While we are at it, we need to set a good example. All of this talk of bullying becoming extreme with kids, and we forget to look in the mirror. Any online message forum, new site or fb group is a glorious view of what divisive, immature, judgmental, bubble-living, hateful fucks adults have become. Kids learn from adults. Adults in our society have become absolute pieces of shit, easily distracted, comfortably numb keyboard warriors. And we wonder why our country is going to shit.

What did Scalia really say in Heller — which Nick ignores and/or misreprseents. . In the process of establishing gun ownership as an individual right, Scalia had to reaffirm what that right protects. The precedent was established by US v Miller in 1939, where the RIGHT was also expanded, also requiring a ruling on what that right protects. Am I going too fast?

Heller is 157 pages, but the actual decision is on pages 1-3. All the rest is research, history, and ALL the opinions, both affirming and dissenting. What the right PROTECTS is up front, n paragraphs 1(f) and 2.

Heller Ruling Page One 1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

The limitation on protected weapons does NOT infringe on the right, as goobers claim, but merely defines what the right protects.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ?.

…Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

“At the time” means at ratification. Guntards say it means “currently.” — bat-shit crazy, in the context. And bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons” kicks their asses anyhow.

Scalia later ridicules the claim, by guntards who LIE saying the ruling would limit the protected weapons.to muskets. It protects modern forms of militia-style weapons, just as the 1st amendment protects modern forms of speech and printing, and the 4th protects against modern search, Scalia explicitly argues why “M-16 rifles and the like” are NOT protected. Page 55

Yes, Virginia, 2A DOES protect only hunting rifles, or something quite close. Semi-automatics are already excluded. That’s why the NRA was HELPLESS against the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban ? for 10 long years.

As Scalia reminds, NO rights are unlimited. They’re limited by other unalienable rights, which can compete or conflict. This is not new. It’s the core of Natural Rights. Yes, there is a conflict between the rights of Gun Ownership versus Life. Goobers scream that owning a gun is no threat to life True, but the right itself is a threat to thousands of lives, as PROVEN in the data that follow..

I address only to the Constitutional issue. It’s not my place, nor the that of guntards, to argue for or against any specific laws.

But the moral principle is clear. Imagine ANY new control(s) that would reduce deatsh by 2,000 lives per year. Does a government — of and by the people — have the power and the obligation to save those lives?

That was the one sentence, but I also supported that conclusion, extensively.

You may of course disagree with the one-sentence conclusion that YOU requested, but that would be an opinion, not a supported argument. Unless you can defend denying the Right to Life, as a right to be secured by our government.

He still hasnt shown how possessing a gun, any other arm, or anything really conflicts with the right to life. He will link to shooting statistics over and over again, while failing to realise that shootings dont occur from possession, sales, or buying (the things that the grabbers want to ban), but from improper USUAGE…..an action that is already illegal and pretty much everyone agrees should continue to be illegal.

You have PUBLICLY and REPEATEDLY stated your IGNORANCE between LIVING and a RIGHT to life And (presumably) too dumb to understand an explanation — which would be like explaining nuclear physics to a chimp.

Yes, you ARE a bully. (sneer) I posted data and a sources … versus your EVASIONS and DIVERSIONS

2) MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work in both directions, like the nuclear arms race did?

3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW

4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why? (You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict when two absolute rights are competing)

I’ll even make this really easy for you. Provide one single cite to where simply keeping and bearing arms (as opposed to shooting/stabbing/whatever, whether negligently or intentionally – all of which is currently illegal) interfered with someone’s right to life.

Owning a gun cannot kill anyone. Correct. Thus owning a gun doesnt interfere with the right to life. So why would you think the 2nd amendment, which protects the unalienable right to own a gun, interferes with the right to life?… Remember shooting someone is illegal and murder laws are constitutuional, and we all agree on that.

Congrats Hihn! You finally got it. Now that you admit that the 2nd amendment and the right to life are not in conflict, you can join the other 91% that keep rejecting you and press back against those who wish to restrict the second, despite no one being harmed by it! Do try to not be such a dick though.

Dumbass Hihn shows up to preach his State supremacist views, as usual. I’m thankful for the writing style, as it alerts me to keep scrolling without reading the poor attempts at thought that follow. Hihn + words = 0

Verbal Aggressiveness …A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication … Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

You may not know this, but libertarians commit to the Non-Aggression Principle, for neatly a half century.

Hihn, The words you type are an electron-assault on people’s eyes and brains, thus it is you who has violated the non-aggression principle. Further, you’re a liar who lies about the assaults you commit by accusing others of bullying… Directions – Hihn = Themistocles

What do the demographics of the respective countries look like. I bet a breakdown will be far more enlightening to the numbers and how they pan out. Just like with how Sweden became the rape capital of the northern hemisphere.

But the moral principle is clear. Imagine ANY new control(s) that would reduce deaths by a mere 2,000 lives per year. Does a government — of and by the people — have the power and the obligation to save those lives?

Morals are a complex argument, Michael. I would have to ask, in this moral code you describe, who gets to define a thing as “good”: those to whom good is being done, or those doing such things they see as good?

Congress, of course, Within rights those enshrined in our Constitution, Life Gun Ownership and several others. Plus, the founders enshrined the Declaration’s Unalienable Rights in The Ninth Amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..”

Also called fundamental rights, they include Life and Liberty, the package called Pursuit of Liberty .. the enumerated rights — and an unknown number of “unenumerated rights.”

Can you list the “other” rights guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment? They are intentionally never named, to be determined at some later time. Rights are NAMED in response to perceived abuses by governments. Like like the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Directly toy your question, ALL recognized “political” rights were first enumerated by a court or tribunal. Some say it’s wrong for “unelected judges” to “invent” rights. which they’ve been doing for over 1000 years They’re also the only ones who can resolve conflicts between competing rights — as a check and balance of the other two branches creating such conflicts. On conflicts, they obliged to provide a resolution that best defends BOTH rights, since both are absolute.

Some say it’s wrong for “unelected judges” to “invent” rights. which they’ve been doing for over 1000 years

Yes, but what about the Reform Anglos who are dedicated to pluralistic English common law? Do they have the right to engage in civil disobedience against the orthodox English common law monopoly the way the Women of the Wall fight for pluralism?

Only on rainy Thursdays.in July. But to the issue, English common law is where the principle of judges and tribunals establishing fundamental rights began. At independence, we carried on with the common law, which was eventually replaced (all of it I believe) by actual rulings and legislation.. As I recall, we followed the common law until it was replaced or superseded here. I

Next you’ll be forcing Muslims or blacks to register with the police when they live or work in a neighborhood. You will claim it’s for safety and you’ll ask how anyone could oppose such a measure. You will call the civil rights opposition immoral for protecting innocents from you.

Politicians, Michael? You would have politicians be the arbiters of morality?.

Read it again! Wait! I’ll read it to you.

Congress, within the limits of the Constitution — the Constitution you DEFY. Beyond that, it’s ONLY SCOTUS, per the Constitution, which you AGAIN defy

ALL recognized “political” rights were first enumerated by a court or tribunal. Some say it’s wrong for “unelected judges” to “invent” rights. which they’ve been doing for over 1000 years They’re also the only ones who can resolve conflicts between competing rights — as a check and balance of the other two branches creating such conflicts. On conflicts, they obliged to provide a resolution that best defends BOTH rights, since both are absolute.

So you cannot read, fuck the Constitution … and FAIL to address YOUR OWN QUESTION!

Morals are a complex argument, Michael. I would have to ask, in this moral code you describe, who gets to define a thing as “good”:

It’s not complex at all, to anyone educated on the Constitution and basic history — which we learn in high school — but it’s apparently too complex for you to answer.

Complaining about a problem, without posing a solution, is whining. -Theodore Roosevelt

Why would you presume the fault lies in my stupidity rather than misunderstanding? I mean, besides the obvious bit where it’s satisfying to imagine people only disagree because they are stupid, evil, or crazy.

It’s not only possible but I’d posit it’s even plausible that stupidity isn’t common ’round these parts, and yet misunderstandings are.

the Constitution you DEFY.

You say this as if it’s some shocking thing, and now my job is to be defensive, when really I find the Constitution exactly as relevant as do the legal and political systems. Frankly, my friend, the Constitution has either authorized such government as we have or been powerless to prevent it. It’s poetry, written by humans and ignored by humans when convenient to humans.

Anything else?

Yes. Want to see which one of us the market picks as the intelligent Hihn?

You do get to question my intelligence over mere disagreement, and resort to scorn and incivility – you not only get to, I can’t stop you. What you do not get is a free lunch. They don’t exist.

“Everyone else” isn’t the only problem here, Michael. If the only way I can get through to you is raw, naked market competition – then game on, my lad. *cracks knuckles* I’m fair with words and logic, I rather like my odds.

I’d much rather get through to you via fair play, civility, talking to you as one man to another. If’n I can actually manage to haul the rest of these knuckle-draggers with me into having rational, normal, interesting conversations with you, all the better. The point is that I’m getting through, one way or the other.

And besides, this little philosophical diversion isn’t even all that interesting. It’s just the ethical man vs moral man argument, and MY GOD that is so freshman year Socio class. Admit it, this is rote.

The same right all innocent people have to not be targeted and scapegoated.

If it’s wrong to target innocent Muslims for oppression because of some terror attack, if it’s wrong to target innocent Latinos because of MS-13, if it’s wrong to target innocent black Americans because of gang violence in Chicago, then it’s wrong to target innocent gun owners because of some school shooting.

Innocent people are innocent. People like you who would target innocents are evil.

We don’t give in to Klan members lynching innocents. We won’t be giving in to your hateful plans against innocents either.

Does a government — of and by the people — have the power and the obligation to save those lives? And by what right do you deny that?

The same right all innocent people have to not be targeted and scapegoated.

How does that outweigh the government’s purpose of defending life?

If it’s wrong to target innocent Muslims for oppression because of some terror attack, if it’s wrong to target innocent Latinos because of MS-13, if it’s wrong to target innocent black Americans because of gang violence in Chicago, then it’s wrong to target innocent gun owners because of some school shooting.

But it’s okay to take human life?

Innocent people are innocent. People like you who would target innocents are evil.

But it’s okay for YOU to deny the defense of life itself? You’d defend abortion up to the moment of birth, and you call ME evil!

We don’t give in to Klan members lynching innocents.

Make up your mind. Do you reject or defend the securing of a Right to Life? And what are the odds of you amending the Constitution to remove a Right to Life.

You’re confused. Guilt and innocence apply only to the LAW, For the constitution, it’s constitutional or unconstitutional,

You can disagree with any proposed law, as can anyone, But you CANNOT say a law cannot be passed .. if it’s constitutional.

And you’re STILL running away from your position — positionS, plural, since your argued BOTH both sides — that government has no power or obligation to defend the Right to Life (or any other fundamental rights, which you cannot even list

I’m not saying anything about any laws. I’m saying _you_ want to persecute people who are innocent, people who have hurt no one and intend to hurt no one. You want to send police to the homes of harmless, guiltless people to threaten them. That’s evil. Stop being evil.

First: If the government has a duty to protect life, then abortion should be outlawed.

Only to those IGNORANT that all fundamental rights are absolute (unalienable). You FAIL to answer how ti resolve a conflict between two absolute rights — here, Life and Liberty. SLAVER.

I’m surprised you agree with Ron Paul about something, given your vitriolic hatred of him.

I don’t hate anyone. I just explained why he’s full of shit on that. Did you also support his INSANE attempt to forbid SCOTUS to even consider any appeals to DOMA — which would have made homosexuals the first people denied the defense of their constitutional rights SINCE SLAVERY? SLAVER?

Second: the mere act of owning a gun in no way threatens another persons life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. No matter how many times you try to assert otherwise.

I never said it did, no matter how many times you repeat your blatant lie.

Fuck off, slaver. (Just responding with aggression against noted bully and all around asshole who wants to strip innocent people of their rights.)

By describing current Supreme Court rulings? I deny NOTHING.

YOU deny a woman’s right to Liberty. And MAY support stripping them “goddamn fags” of the right to defend their constitutional rights — Ron Paul’s BLATANT defiance of the 9th and 14th Amendments

Your “long term” is totally irrelevant, nless it also compares the dates of all new gun regulations per country, and the effect (if any) on shooting death rates.

The only comparison I’ve seen was included in England’s history where — I did report, with a source — they had only five mass shootings in 22 years (adjusted for population) .. and the US is 11,000% higher.

Just to clarify, that in no way implies that our mass shootings would collapse to England’s 0.2 year if we copied their regulations.. That can only be determined here

I did say I was dealing only with two constitutional issues. Semi-automatic weapons have not been protected since 1939, And NO rights are absolute, when they are in conflict with ANY of the MANY other fundamental (unalienable) rights.

There you go ignoring facts for your own argument again. We have the 2nd amendment to prevent things like democide and oppression. He’s not even asking for the numbers of people blatantly abused by their governments, he just wants the number of killed.

Um, the 2A almost certainly does protect semi automatic guns, if it’s in common use, not particularly dangerous, and suitable for self defense.

Scalia stated that military weapons are not protected by 2A by default, and dangerous and unusual weapons are not protected. That’s been the way decades before the rise of school shootings. Not many American citizens own automatic assault rifles like AK-47. Semi automatic AR-15 type long guns have been acceptable as guns suitable for defense for year. You may recall that some Koreans defended their business during the riots using such guns.

Note that a short barrel shotgun is illegal even though it’s not military in nature and can only hold maybe 2 rounds, because it’s a more dangerous weapon that can be concealed. A handful that can hold 10 rounds is legal. An AR-15 is essentially a handgun with cosmetic differences.

if it’s in common use, not particularly dangerous, and suitable for self defense.

There were no semi-automatics in the 1700s.

Semi automatic AR-15 type long guns have been acceptable as guns suitable for defense for year.

But not constitutionally protected since 1939. The 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban”: was constitutional on the 1939 ruling alone — which also specifies weapons used for militia duty in the 1700s — and that the militia was EXPLICITLY non-military (separate from a standing army)

You may recall that some Koreans defended their business during the riots using such guns.

They have not been constitutionally protected since 1939, which is the constitutional issue. I have cited the ruling and linked to the complete text.

The 94 assault weapon ban was never challenged on 2A ground, and had virtually no effect on violent crime. That because (as Sullum noted on this site) it banned guns based on cosmetic features. And most gun crimes are committed by handguns. Other semi auto long guns were still being sold.

In the Heller case, Scalia opined that common guns used for self defense was protected by the 2A. Whether there was no “semi automatic guns” in the 1700s is a moot point. He specified that “militia” was referring to a body of men capable of military service (not a paramilitary unit), and the 2A allowed common guns used in their homes to be used for that purpose. That allowance carries to modern times, even as gun technology and fire rate improved.

Scalia also said dangerous and uncommon weapons that might be more suitable for warfare was not protected by 2A. That’s it. You took that as “see the 2A isn’t absolute, we can ban all kinds of guns”. And yet, there examples of business owners using long guns and shotguns to defend their homes and businesses, as recently as the BLM riots. An semi auto AR-15 is not purely a weapon of war and is not much different than a handgun, aside from cosmetic features.

If the government can’t ban handguns, then it (arguably) cannot ban long guns with similar features. The SC is punting on this issue, but if you’re libertarian, then the position is clear. But you aren’t one, so what does it matter?

That because (as Sullum noted on this site) it banned guns based on cosmetic features.

Sullum recited NRA propaganda. This site is not relevant.

Other semi auto long guns were still being sold.

Some were.

In the Heller case, Scalia opined that common guns used for self defense was protected by the 2A. … “militia” was referring to a body of men capable of military service

In the 1700s. (Miller, actually)

Scalia also said dangerous and uncommon weapons that might be more suitable for warfare was not protected by 2A. That’s it. You took that as “see the 2A isn’t absolute, we can ban all kinds of guns”

Scalia EXPLICITLY said 2a was not absolute. Neither he nor I said your invention.

The SC is punting on this issue,

VERY explicit.

but if you’re libertarian, then the position is clear.

REAL libertarians understand that NO rights can be absolute, when in conflict — which you IGNORE — and the ONLY proper way to resolve such conflicts. It’s ANTI-libertarians, both left and right, which seek to impose THEIR preferred right by force, in such conflicts.

Heller, Page 55 the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. duty.

US v Miller (1939) (Precedent) … the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

As the Nazis were elected, they didn’t violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave? Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

So, tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were “free to leave”? Those walls with the barbed wire and the guards with the machine guns, those were to prevent others from attacking those Jews, huh?

Hihn legitimately thinks “rights” are subject to the will of the majority (or plurality). And, if this is anything like the other times I’ve brought it up, Hihn will now come forward to defend the Nazis and their “rights” and “freedom”…

There were 262 million murders of UNARMED people by governments in the 20th century.

You see, he has to disarm us in order to kill us. He worships the State, and the elections by a small minority (the plurality that votes for the winner, out of the minority that vote). And nothing, NOTHING is allowed to stand in its way. Not you, not me, and certainly not the peasants who think they can own guns to defend themselves!

He worships the State. If you don’t worship the State, he wants to be able to kill you. There is nothing else that makes sense*.

*OK, asking Hihn to make sense is quite ridiculous, I know. But, if he is anything other than insane, this must be his plan. So, he’s either insane, or attempting mass murder. You choose.

Facts:

Hihn defends Nazis because they didn’t violate “rights” (as he sees them). Hihn wants to take your guns away even though that will cause more violent crime. Hihn knows government often mass murders UNARMED civilians but still wants to disarm you.

“Facts: Hihn defends Nazis because they didn’t violate “rights” (as he sees them). Hihn wants to take your guns away even though that will cause more violent crime. Hihn knows government often mass murders UNARMED civilians but still wants to disarm you.”

This is all true. Hihn (or whoever posts here by that handle) is neither intelligent, nor consistent. I’d like to be sympathetic, but he(?) really is just a fucking imbecile. I know the sock posting asHihn in the blue handle somehow tries to offer solace for the idiot “Hihn”, but I’m not sure why,

I’ll guess you and I disagree on issues, but perhaps agree on a few core principles. I ignore ace ? who’s been stalking me for over a year. Since YOU brought it up … he’s the wacky extreme of Rothbardian anarchism, I know how to debate them. And how dangerous they are.

They’re called paleo-libertarians — as in paleolithic! His shitstorm began when he insisted that “consent of the governed” must be UNANIMOUS. Yeah, I RIDICULED that. But there is a lesson and I’m now writing it for publication. Bear with me Commenrs invited.

If ANY one person can overrule 350 million Americans — is that libertarian or authoritarian? If a free people has the right to form a garden club, why not a nation?

Many libertarians have trouble with the rest, at first glance. It’s PURE philosophy. Forming a Jeffersonian or Randian government (they’re the same) is like forming a garden club. EXACTLY. Pay the dues and follow the rules — or quit. (The “emigrate” that drives him nuts.) We celebrate the boat people who RISKED DEATH for their freedom from Cuba, VietNam and elsewhere. This REALLY pisses of paleos, because it exposes their bullshit, their authoritarianism and their cowardice.

I did not support nazis, I defended the right of the people to elect them. He went ape-shit over killing Jews … who had the right to EMIGRATE for many years, and many did, All could have. REAL libertarians know FDR turned away thousands, Cont’d

2/4 If you ABSOLUTELY cannot accept the rules of society or club, LEAVE. These asshole know NOTHING about the Russian gulags, Cuba and Vietnam.

Instead of FLEEING to the freedom THEY want, they SUCK OFF the freedom and prosperity of America –created and maintained by people THEY ( paleos) say had NO RIGHT to create and maintain they society the paleos refuse to leave. THAT is an entitlement mentality! (and bat-shit crazy)

The very last step was realized by Rand too late in life, when she and libertarians were at war. Yes, taxation is theft .. BUT — voluntary taxation is the LAST step toward a free society, the LAST reform to be attempted … AFTER government is reduced to its proper size … which will be a long and complex process. Will of the people. But why?

She dwelled on both moral and political philosophy. Moral philosophy is individualism. POLITICAL philosophy us a group thing. “The moral is the chosen.” What IS unanimous is that EVERYONE has a right to choose. It is NOT majoritarian for a majority to create an entire constitution ? which is a bigger fucking deal than an election! And OUR majority constitution rejected majority rule in OPERATING government. (Jefferson argued for each generation writing or considering its own constitution ? to avoid what we have now — his exact word were “consent of the dead.” Fuck what the founders intended. What did Jefferson intend?) Cont’d

3/4 Sadly, Ayn Rand’s greatest lesson was lost. The MORAL philosophy of individualism includes PERSUADING the society as a group to DEFEND an ever-expanding list of protected rights. THAT is where libertarianism has FAILED. Anti-gummint paleos are now the voice, NOT the pro-liberty faction that asks, “How much can we expand individual liberty NOW. And FIGHT for every inch … with persuasion, not authoritartianism.”

That’s how individual liberty has been expanding since the Enlightenment, in bursts and lulls, am inch at a time, for over 400 years. “The moral is the chosen” for both an individual and society ? but applied differently individuals societies. Or go off and live alone.

Rand actually completed Jefferson’s theory. There are rights in the absolute, and there are rights a society CHOOSES to protect. BOTH are moral. Because the moral can ONLY be freely chosen. No coercion.

Paleos, have NO FUCKING CLUE how to achieve THEIR ideal society. To Rothbard, to even SEEK political office is an EVIL lust for power. YES. we ALWAYS conspire with statists, in office, to move as many inches as possible NOW ?. Or wait to elect a majority? Or a coup? DUH? Cont’d

It is ace and Paleos empowering statists, by REFUSING to challenge them directly — and ATTACKING anyone who tries as “impure.” When I ran a state party, two jeering assholes in the back of the hall could DESTROY our entire state and local ticket at state conventions. THEY are the enemy.

Over 60% of Americans now SELF-describe as Nolan libertarians (fiscally conservative and socially liberal) But 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label. TOTALLY. That’s not a movement It’s a cult.

There is a libertarian moment, but libertarianISM must ruin and catch up to it.

One of my bosses had a sign above his door, on the way out. “I must hurry, for there go my people, and I am their leader.”

Bingo, And Americans are now eager for even radical change, but the movement has NO policy solutions. “Git gummint out” is NOT a policy and NOT what can elect what we need .. and COULD have.

There is an easy libertarian answer – educational freedom. Requiring by law that a whole class of people be locked up daily for twelve years of their lives so they can be indoctrinated by the government is about as anti- libertarian as it comes and we shouldn’t be surprised that this is the consequence.

Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|5.20.18 @ 2:08PM|# “Do you guys wonder why society rejects the anti-government rants of disaffected right-wing cranks, or do you possess some self-awareness and understand that you have lost the culture war?”

Do you understand that being right does not always mean being popular, or are you just some fucking lefty asshole?

He’s a disingenuous poster who comes in, makes unsupported claims, calls people names, and then disappears. The very definition of a troll. He’s been doing this for years on Volokh and unfortunately migrated here when that blog came over to Reason from the Washington Post.

Yet another incredibly disingenuous response from the Good Reverend. Where did Trainer call for no education? He is arguing that a particular organization (one that has a vested interest in teaching only certain sides of issues) should not have a monopoly power on education. What are you scared of, Reverend? That people might not buy your ideas if they’re not force-fed down their throats starting at the point in their lives when they’re most impressionable?

I’ve been thinking about this today and I realized the general answer is- we make our country safer by upholding ALL basic freedoms instead of trying force one freedom into an oppressive environment because that will never work.

exactly this. If he’d show how they were in conflict, I would agree with him. But he cant, probably because they arent. Sure, he can show how murdering someone conflicts with the Right to Life, but Im fairly certain that murder is illegal and murder-bans enjoy wide spread support among the left, right, and everyone else in between.

There is an easy libertarian answer – educational freedom. Requiring by law that a whole class of people be locked up daily for twelve years of their lives so they can be indoctrinated by the government is about as anti- libertarian as it comes and we shouldn’t be surprised that this is the consequence.

There is an easy libertarian answer – educational freedom. Requiring by law that a whole class of people be locked up daily for twelve years of their lives so they can be indoctrinated by the government is about as anti- libertarian as it comes and we shouldn’t be surprised that this is the consequence.

There is an easy libertarian answer – educational freedom. Requiring by law that a whole class of people be locked up daily for twelve years of their lives so they can be indoctrinated by the government is about as anti- libertarian as it comes and we shouldn’t be surprised that this is the consequence.

There is an easy libertarian answer – educational freedom. Requiring by law that a whole class of people be locked up daily for twelve years of their lives so they can be indoctrinated by the government is about as anti- libertarian as it comes and we shouldn’t be surprised that this is the consequence.

There is an easy libertarian answer – educational freedom. Requiring by law that a whole class of people be locked up daily for twelve years of their lives so they can be indoctrinated by the government is about as anti- libertarian as it comes and we shouldn’t be surprised that this is the consequence.

There is an easy libertarian answer – educational freedom. Requiring by law that a whole class of people be locked up daily for twelve years of their lives so they can be indoctrinated by the government is about as anti- libertarian as it comes and we shouldn’t be surprised that this is the consequence.

There is an easy libertarian answer – educational freedom. Requiring by law that a whole class of people be locked up daily for twelve years of their lives so they can be indoctrinated by the government is about as anti- libertarian as it comes and we shouldn’t be surprised that this is the consequence.

Nick cited a source for his claims about Hitler and gun control — which are facts, but destroy the NRA hysteria about gun grabbers … the same hysteria you sow here, that Nick is a Hitler sympathizer, because he called out your bullshit, with documentation.

Monitored security cameras might have helped spot a student wearing a trenchcoat in Texas in May. Might not help in winter, but there may be other profiling details to look for. Remington 870 not known for concealablity.

Since most shooters are narcissistic suicide cases, offer the possibility of killing yourself live on TV, in the spectacular way of your choice. That way you get the fame you crave and the sweet release of death. And no collateral damage to taint your rep in posterity.

A less drastic solution would be to repeal compulsory attendance laws. How many of these students shooters simply didn’t want to be there in the first place, and wouldn’t have shot anyone if they hadn’t been forced to attend? I would guess most.

According to the Washington Post: “Since Columbine, 214,000 children at 216 schools have experienced gun violence during school hours.” Assuming these figures are correct, they certainly beg the question but not the one WAPO suggests.

To blame guns for the violence is to blame the ‘delivery device’. If we could just ban all guns, the problem would go away. Well, yes. If you could effectively ban all guns (doubtful), the problem of gun violence would go away. But does anyone really believe that gun violence is the real problem? Really, does anyone really believe that?

London has the strictest gun laws in the world. Almost no one has access to a gun, either the good guys or the bad guys. Yet, just last month London passed NYC in the number of homicides committed. The vast majority of these murders were committed with knives with an assorted strangulation here and there. The delivery devices changed but the result is the same. I call this the substitution theory.

And let’s not forget the Santa Fe planted IED’s similar to the bombs used in the Boston Marathon attack.

To blame senseless tragedies like Santa Fe on guns is not only lazy it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because it anesthetizes us from thinking and rationally discussing the real problems: Why are so many of our children killing each other? I will be willing to support stricter gun laws when someone answers that question.

Okay. Let’s go with that. Columbine was 1999. So that amounts to about 10,000 students per year. There are 50 million students in the public school system at any given time. So that’s 0.2 “gun violence experiences” per 1,000 students every year. If we assume that “gun violence experience” means gun victimization (which is not at all evident), that rate is 5 times lower than the national rate. 216 schools is 10 per year over that 20 year period. There are 100,000 public schools in the U.S. So any given school has a 1 in 10,000 chance of being victimized in a given year. These are incredibly low incidence rates. And this is for the broadest possible stats the media can think of (“gun violence experiences”). Actual mass killings are significantly more rare. This is media sensationalizing at its worst.

First, most libertarians are slow to restrict constitutionally protected rights to own and bear arms, especially since it’s only been relatively recently (2008) that the Supreme Court has fully recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms…

Most libertarians are slow to restrict constitutionally protected rights, and the right to self defense especially because the Supreme Court is sort of cool with the concepts.

I’ll take a stab. Privatization of education. Back in the 60’s government education took the advice of their own “experts” and decided consolidation was the thing to do. Bigger schools, concentrating more students into one location. Entire districts were dissolved, merged, and molded to this design. Ostensibly it was to close small, ill equipped schools that teachers avoided, and cut plant costs with fewer buildings. Too many kids to assimilate. Bigger class rooms makes teaching second to maintaining control. I can envision privateers recognizing this. Selling points could include class size and building security. In addition they can refuse to serve the frequent truant, class disrupter, and those that are present only because the law requires it. Smaller schools with smaller class rooms allows teachers to recognize those with emotional and anti social predilections. So where does the Dylan Roofs of the world go? Nowhere. Privatization doesn’t have to mean the end of the government school. Like the city hospital that is required to serve any/everyone regardless their ability to pay, the government school is now, and with privatization, required to seat every applicant, even those who have no intention of learning. But the private school is under no obligation to serve any student, unless discriminating based on color, race, religion or queerness. Private enterprise. There’s hardly a problem that it won’t cure, or at least make much, much better.

I don’t think privatization of education is remotely a good option. It’s nonsense on stilts. You yourself are admitting that it is only a way of instituting ‘education’ for some – and workhouses/prison for others.

BUT – complete decentralization of education – right back to the individual school board and getting rid of school district consolidation. That could work. Because it does get to your issue of smaller schools with smaller classrooms and much more involvement by neighbors/parents/teachers.

We used to have 130,000 school ‘governance entities’ in this country. Basically every school had its own independent school board (except for the South and New England which were always ‘district’-based and imposed their shit on the rest of us). Which also meant nearly every adult at some point or another had to get involved on a volunteer basis in managing the school. Themselves – not abdicating the responsibility to others.

We now have 15,000 school governance entities. All district-based run by full-time ‘professionals’ who don’t give a shit. And after 40 or so years of this – there is now no one in a school system who even remembers what it was like when each school had to run itself and WAS therefore responsive.

As an aside – the reason school districts were created and individual school boards eliminated was because of suburbs. A whole bunch of schools had to be built new and individual school boards were not a very good way of dealing with a slew of new school construction bonds which could only be issued at the state or county level.

But while that may have been a legitimate need in the 1940’s/1950’s, it really doesn’t apply today. And even where it does, there’s a ton of ways that one could separate the issues of capital/construction/financing v operations/administration/curriculum.

As an aside – the reason school districts were created and individual school boards eliminated was because of suburbs

School boards manage school districts. A board is people — like a board of directors and every other board. A district is a geographical area, typically the same as one or more city limits.

As a school, activist for several decades, one term as a board member and a winning tax revolt … oh hell, a paper boy should see your bullshit … Does ANY organization, public or private, have a separate entity to PLAN, BUDGET and MANAGE their construction projects? WHY NOT???

P.S. WHO issues the bonds is IRRELEVANT …. since the jurisdiction has to repay them. It’s the PRIVATE sector that combines these bonds into unitary packages … NOT the public sector.

When the President has a private kill list he can use to drone anyone without trial, that sets an example for the rest of us.

Sitting around and fighting about guns and gun control is a red-herring. It kind-of reminds me an alcoholic home: No one wants to talk about Mommy or Daddy’s drinking, but it’s the real reason the kids are acting up.

“Do as I say, not as I do” isn’t an effective leadership strategy, although that seems lost on everyone in DC.

Hmm…to stop school shootings…stop going to school. That’s about what it’s going to take. You can take away the guns in a perfect world, but then you will have to deal with the bomb’s this kid made, vehicles, bats, clubs, rocks, even hands and feet. Then there are those disparaging evil words. All along ignoring Human nature.

Getting the cosmos to agree with me is not my goal. My goal is to reach individuals with the truth and who will make a choice to ignore them so that they can raise their children in freedom. Because of people who have spoken up and taken a stand in the past, I was able to unschool my kids without going to jail.

Sadly, you understand todays liberal mind too well. If the stats become bad enough, they will come up with a new line of bull, maybe “life skill centers”, in order to get at a clean sheet of paper and sweep old stats away from view so that “school” stats begin a downward averaging trend purely on a time basis and it begins to look like union tools know what they are doing. Political hacks have a knack for selecting a band aid when presented with a stab wound it seems to me.

I wonder if that includes some of capitol hill security, who may have enjoyed some NRA training or education in the past. Perhaps she can resign in protest, as I doubt congress will agree to do away with the security that offends her preciousness.

To paraphrase John, do we want the cops kicking down the doors of law-abiding citizens for exercising their constitutional rights, because some 17 year old with who-knows-what issues went and killed some of his classmates?

If stopping school shootings requires “shredding the constitution,” then obviously someone should go get a fucking paper shredder. What a terrible piece of shit constitution if it requires school shootings.

Tony|5.19.18 @ 11:10PM|# “What a fun thought experiment. If stopping school shootings requires “shredding the constitution,” then obviously someone should go get a fucking paper shredder. What a terrible piece of shit constitution if it requires school shootings.”

I happen to be reading “Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine”, Anne Applebaum. Of course an unlettered lefty ignoramus like Tony would have no interest in what happens if a government, as the monopolist of coercion, has no (even) notional limit on its power. Here’s what happens, you slimy piece of shit: “The Holodomor (Ukrainian: ??????????)[a] was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed an officially estimated 7 million to 10 million people[11].” Go ahead, tear it up. I hope you’re first in line, and I’m sorry your mom didn’t have that abortion; the world would be better off.

Uh huh. Can you cite the rates at which people are killed in mass shootings in your favored European nations? They’re on par with the U.S. rate. Strict gun control does not stop these types of shootings. Those intent on getting prohibited items will do so. Thankfully, mass shootings are incredibly rare regardless of gun control laws.

So, if the constitution doesn’t allow the state to take any measure necessary to stop a homicide, tear it up?

The word for that is totalitarianism. Perhaps you can’t accept that allowing people freedom means occasionally people will do dangerous things, or if you accept it and believe it is worth sacrificing any freedom for the slightest increase in safety, I don’t know what to tell you; check yourself into a max security prison I guess.

Problems are: it’s too obvious, employs no public servants requiring tax dollars/lucrative pensions and pays no homage to the God of the State. Individual and voluntary collective defense is the responsibility of a free People.

I just got paid 7k dollar working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over 12k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do

I can’t stand another instance of Cuomo popping out of the woodwork to prove he’s and imbecile. But the short answer to todays question is: choke points. No, not the kind that restrict breathing, but restrict access to a school to one or two points [that are manned/somebody behind a desk] and allow it to be defended with limited resources. NYC has them by default: in building upwards [and usually being pinned lotline to lotline, they don’t have open campuses where perps can enter or exit it 360 degree fashion as they please. Your typical NYC school has one main entrance, a locked or restricted service entrance and maybe an extra side entrance that can be opened during drop off/pickup hours and is manned during those times. We don’t want schools to look like prisons, but there should be an intimidation factor to a would be perp: he ought to worry about how to get in and out. My city is lucky enough to have not had an incident yet, and I underscore yet. The bozos just opened a freshly rebuilt high school this past year: full open campus, same as before, as if Columbine never happened. But, they did come up with an enhanced communication ploy in the form of an alarm that notifies police and administrators in 7 seconds. Love the teachers, but it’s time to knock some heads at local school boards and jettison room temperature IQ administrators. A communications plan is not a security feature.

We already know how to protect schools. They’ve been doing it in the inner city schools for years. At a minimum, you need the following: All first floor glass doors and windows need forced entry glass so they can’t be broken out by a shooter. All outside doors need to be locked 24/7 and alarmed. All classroom doors should be locked when class is in session. Security cameras should monitor every entrance, hallway as well as the perimeter of the building(s). The doors through which students, staff and visitors enter should have metal detectors. There should be at least two armed guards in every school. One stationed at the main entrance and one to monitor the electronic security center (cameras et al) and also provide backup. Do this and you will keep weapons and thus shooters out of your school. And for those of you who think there are no weapons in your unprotected school, drug dealers never go anywhere without their weapon of choice. There is no shortage of drugs and dealers in suburban schools. It’s way past time to wise up and start protecting our kids.

Allow any volunteers approved by the school’s supervisory body to walk the grounds during school hours. Whether or not they’re armed is their choice, as it should be.

Bring back voluntary firearms training and competition for youth.

Make it illegal to permanently/regularly prescribe any psychedelic medication to minors.

Get rid of the ‘zero tolerance’ in regards to violence at school. Someone was in the right and someone was in the wrong. Indoctrinating children to not handle situations themselves, take the abuse and then appeal to authority is a horrible practice.

Eliminate truancy laws. If someone doesn’t want to be packed into a government run, created and indoctrinated facility, they shouldn’t have to. Especially if they just need a day off, they’re growing and in most cases going through puberty, give the kids a break.

Allow teachers to defend themselves and assert authority on school grounds. It’s disgusting to see adults allow children to be violent or disruptive towards them and their pupils and not immediately correct the situation. These shooters, in every single case, didn’t respect their teachers or pupils. If we can fix that, this crap will stop.

Guns have never been the problem. Futilely attempting to remove them from our society will not stop the shootings and it only wastes everyone’s time discussing the symptoms instead of cause. Directing the narrative towards guns is just a bullshit tactic for those who refuse to look in the mirror to address the real problems.

Why do they go bat-shit crazy at the mere statement of inconvenient facts? The bellowing. The unprovoked assaults. And all the psycho lies? They’re like left-wing snowflakes at Berkeley, shouting down differing views in their safe zones.

What are they afraid of? Why do they ALL run in fear from this simple question?

****EIGHTH REQUEST

*****TRUE OR FALSE — IF THERE WERE NO GUNS AT ALL … OVER 10,000 LIVES WOULD BE SAVED FROM GUN HOMICIDE? …. OR … GIVE US YOUR BEST GUESS

THAT NUMBER IS THE CONFLICT, GOOBERS-IN-DENIAL ,… UNLESS YOU SAY ZERO LIVES … WHICH WOULD PROVE YOU A PSYCHO.

(If he’s a TOTAL dumbfuck he’ll say I want to take all the guns … instead of define the conflict that he’s too fucking STUPID to see.)

****WHAT IS YOUR NUMBER?

Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left

(boldface in DEFENSE of multiple, non-stop aggressions by bellowing blowhards)

When do you plan your military coup? There’s no other way your bat-shit crazy rant can happen.

Inconvenient questions:

1) If teachers are armed … who will be killed first?

2) MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work in both directions, like the nuclear arms race did?

3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW

4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?(You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict when two absolute rights are competing)

Why does no one ever talk about the one thing all of these high school shooters have in common? They hate school, the people there, and they hate being forced to go! Here’s a solution that will provide results: Stop forcing them into high school concentration camps, make it easy to get credits at home over a computer instead!

That’s an excellent point. I wonder if technology will quietly solve the school shootings. We already easily have the capability to remotely ‘teach’ kids age 11+. It’s most likely going to be the future of our education ‘system.’

Sounds like we need to start giving the teachers unions the NRA treatment. Tell them they have blood on their hands, that their greed is getting children killed and that they are complicit in murder. Honestly if the government can’t guarantee your childs safety while in their custody then what right do they have requiring them to go unarmed to possible slaughter houses?

Why does no one ever talk about the one thing all of these high school shooters have in common? Fatherlessness and poverty? Folks do talk about that. The problem is that they’re issues that are very difficult for government to solve.

“This is brilliant, and tragically necessary,” Duncan tweeted. “What if no children went to school until gun laws changed to keep them safe? My family is all in if we can do this at scale. Parents, will you please join us?”

“What if no private sector work were done until gun laws changed? My family is all in if we can do this at scale.”

“What if no taxes were paid until gun laws changed? My family is all in if we can do this at scale.”

“What if no laws were obeyed until gun laws changed? My family is all in if we can do this at scale.”

“What if no laws were obeyed until gun laws changed?” My family is all in if we can do this at scale”

I’m not sure what is more alarming: the fact that they think ignoring laws proves how effective laws are. Or the implication that, in order to make that stupid point, their family is ready to turn into….a violent gang?

Let’s all ignore the laws about murder to show how effective gun laws would be! Yeah!

Talk about a self-own: “Hey normies, pull all your children out of public schools until President BLUMPH and the NRA pass a bunch of bullshit laws we’ve been chasing for fifty years!”

I wish the nation’s parents would actually follow this advice. Imagine the lulz when white parents start homeschooling their kids in mass numbers while our vibrant urban ghettos and barrios become full-fledged war zones on the scale of the 70s-early 90s.

But we simply don’t know why the phenomenon of school mass shootings happens, and anyone who claims to know is either wrong or not being honest, because we haven’t applied sufficient research into the matter.

In this particular dynamic “more guns” leads to more mass shootings because these people want to die. So two of our greatest warriors were killed at a gun range while armed by a lunatic with a death wish.

In SF all the news organizations simply refuse to report jumpers from the GG bridge…does that work?

“It’s time we strip the NRA of its stranglehold over our children’s lives.”

– Elizabeth Warren

Complete hyperbole, which usually means avoiding something. And there are plenty of us who defend the second amendment who do not support the NRA, at least in its current incarnation, as it operates as little more than a political org designed to mobilize voters across issues, typically of the social conservative variety.

Warren may be lauded by Democrats as a “change” candidate, but she’s demonstrated herself to be a usual shapeshifter politician that repositions based on the prevailing political winds.

the point I have been using to point something important out to the “we have to do SOMETHING!!!!!” crowed is if a drunk gets in a car and drives into a crowed of school children. do we blame the car or the driver?. quite a few times this has actually made some of them stop and think. even some “you have a good point”. give it a try. it might work.

Where I work, there’s concrete waist-high barriers preventing vehicles from getting within ten feet of the building. In most places the barrier is even further out, also keeping the sidewalk from vehicles.

If such vehicle attacks become common, I expect to see such barriers become much more common place as we build literal walls to make it more difficult for folks to use cars as weapons against pedestrians.

Which is to say… have no doubt, if cars-as-weapon attacks become common, you’ll see reactive changes.

I just got paid 7k dollar working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over 12k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do

Shooting people actually interferes with the right to life, so it should be and is illegal, outside extenuating circumstances. Keeping and bearing arms does not. An easy concept to understand for the 91% of Americans that Hihn hasnt repulsed.

We’ve always had school kids who were bullied, teased, or romantically rejected….and did not reach for dad’s gun to settle a score. We’re now in post-Columbine thinking where unchecked narcissism fueled by internet preening has incubated a randomized cell of sociopaths and psychopaths that have no clue about right and wrong. How do we distinguish them from your typical awkward teen misfits and outcasts, establish real threats, and try to successfully isolate those threats from weapons? Do we turn schools into prisons with metal detectors, pat downs, and windowless vaults? How does society produce fewer narcissistic sociopaths without sacrificing the rights of some teens to be weird, people to own guns for self defense, and our school’s primary mission? If only we could regulate quality parenting and psychiatric well being. Should these guns have been secured from this psychopath? Should his parents have known he was building pressure-cooker bombs and that he thought this was an appropriate response….ever? No law can clean up societal rot….enough.

The real issue is why are our kids no longer able to cope with disappointment and failure since adults know that is just part of life? That is the issue. When you have a school system that tells kids there are no winners and losers until the reach high school when suddenly there are nothing but winners and losers, they are unprepared. I mean winners and losers in terms of you make the football team or you dont make the team. You make A’s in your classes or you make Cs. The issue is until they reach high school, “everyone gets a trophy”. So kids that do not work hard this they are entitled to the same rewards as those who do and when they don’t get them they do not know how to cope. Employers say the most common issue with young employees is they do not understand how to make decisions and risk failure. To them failing is the end of the world and therefore, they have no ambition or initiative because their fear of failure cripples them. Sadly, it is that fear of failure that leads to events like, this one.

There’s an obvious disconnect in how Americans tend to approach issues like this. On the one hand we say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. And on the other hand, focus all our “solutions” on gun-control ideas. Plainly, if “people kill people” then fetishizing gun control will only address the surface and not the reality.

My first question every time a mass-shooting incident occurs is: “tell me about the parents” and “tell me about the family”. This aspect of the story always gets underreported. But in this case we know that the shooter had little or no relationship with his mother; the same was true of Dylan Rooff and the Columbine shooters (whose parents did not even know they were stockpiling guns at home).

Of course the problem with this line of inquiry is that it isn’t sexy at the voting booths, and it defies easy answers such as DO SOMETHING!!!!! But what we are seeing here is NOT gun nuts running wild but poorly parented and poorly socialized young people taking it out on society in the most spectacular way possible.

I just got paid 7k dollar working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over 12k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do

“Another week, another school shooting, … As of the May 18 Santa Fe school shooting, there had been two mass shootings in 138 days of 2018. Parkland Florida, 17 dead. Santa Fe Texas, 10 dead. And 2 dead in other school shootings. It is not at all like a Santa Fe every week or even every other week. Exaggerating stats does not help any discussion about fixes.*

Locally since 1997 we have had school resource officers in the high schools. One engaged an armed man who had entered the school, pulled a gun on the principal and demanded to be shown the fire alarm.

In 2013, two high school students who were plotting to outdo Columbine were reported by a concerned parent and a mental health specialist. The two admitted their plot at trial.

This year a recent graduate told his girlfriend he intended to go to the school and shoot it up; he was reported and arrested.

At one of our walkouts, a major complaint was that while students and staff used swipe cards to gain entry, some doors were being left unsecured for convenience of construction contractors.

Controlling school access, reporting of threats, acting on threats, and school resource officer presence have all been attacked by gun control advocates who claim the only thing that will work is a code in the federal statutes that Brand ABC Model XYZ scary looking rifle is on a verboten list.

_______________ *(While at least five were adults, the total of 29 is used in WaPo’s schoolkids killed talking point.)

Your article missed the simple fact that school’s that have properly implemented the recommendations of “hardening” have never been shot up. They have a 100% safety record. So your statement that “everything has been done and nothing has worked” (I’m paraphrasing) isn’t correct. Hardening has been done and it has worked.

Liberals hate the idea that a military-style approach is the most effective, but it’s true. Important to note that it’s a very specific process, it’s not just adding a few armed guards and putting up a few fences. Also important to note that it doesn’t “militarize” a campus as some protest. Guards carry concealed dressed in plain clothes or snappy casual uniforms.

This issue forces Americans to ask the question, who’s responsible for protecting kids in school? Why not hold the school administrators accountable for protecting the kids they legally required to attend their schools?